So what scenarios have you played Recently?

Ray Woloszyn

"Fire and Movement"
Joined
Aug 20, 2003
Messages
4,080
Reaction score
1,214
Location
Kernersville, NC
First name
Ray
Country
llUnited States
Played the Rally Point Korean War scenario Rebel Roost [RPT143] as the North Koreans and got hammered by Dave Stephens. Setup is difficult for the NKPA. A problem is whether or not to put the T-34's on level two or three. I did not. The American M24's could go hull down and perhaps start getting double hits from their four M24's. Despite the low number needed for a kill, many shots might just be enough to take one out early. If you are not careful, a cross fire might catch a side shot on one or both of the T-34's. The Americans can aslo dump a lot of smoke on the hill with the M24's if lucky. Dave used the M24's smoke mortars to cover his men well. It did not help that my MMG broke three times! In hindsight I should have set some foxholes back on the level 2 and not on the slope to level 1 for once the Americans got close, their fire power broke most of my men in those foxholes. My counterattack with what was left with my good order squads to regain the hill failed as my T-34's did not hurt the Americans by overrun and in the following turn they malfunctioned both MA's. Despite the whuppin' from the Rebels I would like to try this again with a better setup.
 

volgaG68

Fighting WWII One DR At A Time
Joined
Jun 15, 2012
Messages
3,212
Reaction score
1,549
Location
La Crosse, KS
First name
Chris
Country
llUnited States
Played two stellar scenarios lately...

ITR-6 The Ceramic Factory... Another classic BFP city-fight! Russians were able to gain Control of the smaller factory on their final turn 7a(7a), but just came up short on the larger factory; SS win. Two Locations still had German units, oO6 and oP7, the two gully-side 'pockets' formed by interior factory walls. Very fun!

FT 214 A Grain Of Sand...Free French win in final MPh, 6a(6a). Initial F.F. attack sent some units toward the NE to keep the Germans honest on the EVP possibility, and made good progress on the village with the bulk of their forces. With the German reinforcements, the worm slowly turned in the village. Simultaneously, the Shermans took out the 37L ht and IV J (w/ malfed MA) on the northern half of the map, allowing the F.F. to switch momentum towards an EVP win. A couple of German units were able to drift that direction and nearly thwart the EVP #s. However, when the F.F. peeled off a good portion of its village strength, it left the Germans with the upper-hand there. Jerry actually staged a counterattack that got them up to 31 CVP (33 needed to win), but the F.F. barely squeaked 23 EVP off (20 needed). The last couple of Turns were a race to see if the Germans could bust the CVP cap before the F.F. got enough off for the immediate win. Very close, very fun, and the new F.F. counters from Broken Ground Design really added to the visual 'pop'.
 

Gunner Scott

Forum Guru
Joined
Jan 27, 2003
Messages
13,737
Reaction score
2,669
Location
Chicago, IL
Country
llUnited States
Played a couple of scenarios this weekend, played my buddy Rich D. in HF 2 Bartoldo the Brave and FT 124 Guardians of Hells Gate from the KGS gamers guide. Bartoldo the Brave was an ok scenario, as with most of the Hatten scenarios, very basic in nature. We played I think to turn 5 with my Americans succumbing to the German Fire power. Really had no idea where to stick the ATG or MTR since there were very few good places to put them. Not a bad scenario but one I probably would not want to play again.

This evening Randy and I got on VASL and Played FT 224 Guardians of Hells gate a scenario set in Feb 1944. this was an awesome scenario to play as the SS try to hold off a hoard of rampaging Russian Infantry and armor. What is even more cooler is that the scenario uses the a portion of the winter KGS map. The Russians have to noodle out the Germans from so many blocks, the VC is not written well but we got the gist of it, basically the Russians can win at the end of a certain turn number if they control >= to so many blocks in the German set up area. So for example if the Russians can control 4 blocks at the end of turn 3 they win, 5 blocks at the end of turn 4 they win and so on. We assumed the designer wanted the Russians to control blocks in the German set up area and not include the blocks in the Russian set up area, if they did, the Russians would win too easily.

Another question we had was the SS get s a captured 85L ART piece, in the SSR there is no captured penalties but do the SS get the depletion number for 1944 Russians? And with the SS being Elite, can they further modify the depletion from 5 to 6?

Anyway, I had the Attacking Russians vs Randy's defending SS, Some Russians set up on map, some enter as the game progresses. The Germans get a couple of PZ's on turn 1 and a stug later in the game. Are game went to turn 5 with my russians pulling out a victory, Randy had some nice shots and shocked a my T-34 twice but that same t-34 recovered in both cases. His 85L captured russian ART piece took out one T-34 but I swung my T-70 around and charge into his hex (the gun was in debrie) Unlucky for Randy, his crew tried to search for an ATMM and pinned and even with his leaders help the crew could not knock the T-70, then I came back at the crew and 8-0 with a 3, since the crew was pinned, it reduced the crew 's CCV to a 3 and thus instead of being at 1 to 6 (my T-70 was in motion) I was at 1 to 4 and thus was able to reduce the crew from random selection. For a fairly small scenario, it has alot going on, even crashed into a building with one T-34 that contained an SS squad, rolled snake eyes and rubbled the building and killing his SS squad. And yes, the fousts were flying in this one. Super fun scenario that we plan to try again soon. Lots of replay value indeed.
 

Andrew Rogers

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2010
Messages
149
Reaction score
420
Location
Canberra, Australia
First name
Andy
Country
llAustralia
Scott, thank you for all of your detailed write ups. I appreciate the effort. Nearly all of your comments are spot on. In terms of one comment ... can you give me some more context. This would help me to understand and possibly respond. The comment that I have read when outlining the construct/design/set-up of the Hatten historical scenarios that I have heard from yourself and others is 'very basic'. Can you elaborate? Andy
 

Ray Woloszyn

"Fire and Movement"
Joined
Aug 20, 2003
Messages
4,080
Reaction score
1,214
Location
Kernersville, NC
First name
Ray
Country
llUnited States
Scott, thank you for all of your detailed write ups. I appreciate the effort. Nearly all of your comments are spot on. In terms of one comment ... can you give me some more context. This would help me to understand and possibly respond. The comment that I have read when outlining the construct/design/set-up of the Hatten historical scenarios that I have heard from yourself and others is 'very basic'. Can you elaborate? Andy
Your scenarios are comfort food in which basic ASL tactics come to the fore. In that regard they all seem very good for tournaments without a lot of chrome to worry about. I and my regular opponent have enjoyed the two we have played already.
 

Gunner Scott

Forum Guru
Joined
Jan 27, 2003
Messages
13,737
Reaction score
2,669
Location
Chicago, IL
Country
llUnited States
Howdy-

Sure I can tell you why Hatten feels basic in nature, The map has a kind of an SK feel to it IE very basic terrain nothing that really stands out more or less, for example KGP has the sanitarium or VotG has the Train Station. The RG's are somewhat basic with no odd vehicles or for the Americans, a lack of veriety vehicle wise. Other then Bartoldo, the rest of the scenarios are fun and might be on plenty of tourney lists.

Scott, thank you for all of your detailed write ups. I appreciate the effort. Nearly all of your comments are spot on. In terms of one comment ... can you give me some more context. This would help me to understand and possibly respond. The comment that I have read when outlining the construct/design/set-up of the Hatten historical scenarios that I have heard from yourself and others is 'very basic'. Can you elaborate? Andy
 

TomK

Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2017
Messages
88
Reaction score
141
Country
llUnited States
FORGOTTEN WAR JOURNAL​

Al Saltzman and I have set out to play all the Forgotten War scenarios published by MMP. Here's what we have so far:

ASL 203, Hard RoK, played 8 May 2018.
I attacked all across the front in order to gain as much information of the enemy defense as possible. During the course of the battle I lost an SU-76 to a Human Bullet and a T-34/85 to a side shot from a bazooka. Toward the end of the game most of the South Korean force had been eliminated; all I had to do was get across the bridge. A RoK conscript and a first line squad were all that stood in my way. However, the first line squad was on the far side of the stream and had set a DC on the bridge exit hex. As fate would have it one of my half squads went berserk and charged across the bridge, getting blasted by the DC. I drove my remaining armor across and moved about four squads and a 9-2 onto the bridge. The overstacked infantry stack advanced onto the far side of the stream to win the game on the very last turn. Great game!

ASL 204, Human Bullets, played 16 May 2018.
I was able to destroy all the North Korean tanks on the road through the steep hills, mostly with 57L’s but also a Human Bullet and a Demo Charge. However, the mass of North Korean infantry overwhelmed my holding force and pushed toward the hills. Fortunately for me the North Korean infantry wasn’t as aggressive as I thought they should have been. I believe that these are the guys who will potentially win the scenario. Also, the tank convoy should go as far and as fast as possible; they’re going to be killed anyway so might as well try to win with them.

ASL 205, Super Bazooka, played 16 May 2018.
I was crushed by the North Korean armor. I misread the victory conditions, thinking that the North Koreans had to exit at least two tanks off the map. In reality it was either exit or score more CVP than the US. I deployed my force to prevent the exit only. In hind sight I should have used my HIP unit in such a manner to kill a T-34/85. I would gain 7 points if successful and the crew died. The North Koreans would then have to aggressively pursue the US troops in order to catch up with the points. I won’t make that mistake again.

WO 28, Dean’s Defiance, played 18 June 2018.
The three pronged North Korean attack, combined with the infiltrators, was too much for the 2nd line US troops suffering from ammunition shortage. Half of the North Korean infantry and armor entered from the north. On turn 2 one tank and 6 squads entered from the west, then on turn 3 the remainder entered from the east. The US forces were caught in a vice and chewed up. Al conceded on turn 4.

ASL 206, Hey, That Ain’t A ROK!, played 2 July 2018.
Even though Al had the balance, lifting the US ELR to 3, the N Koreans still managed to dominate. My troops were able to pinch off the two lead pockets and caused heavy casualties when the Americans tried to get out. I lost a 4-4-7 squad to a single 8-0 leader and a 6-2-8 with 2 half squads to a 5-4-6 in melee. By the end of turn four the writing was on the wall and the chance of a US victory was nearly impossible, so Al offered his concession.

ASL 207, Bullets for Breakfast, played 9 August 2018.
I played the defending Americans against Al’s elite North Korean force. Only two half squads from the perimeter security element failed their NTC’s so I had better security than anticipated. Things started off well for the NK as he was able to lay a good amount of smoke in front of my forward positions. However, I don’t think he exploited the opportunity to the fullest. This hesitation, combined with some good shooting on my part, slowed the NK advance ever further. By turn two I was pretty confident that I could hold the objective area. On turn three one of my 105’s got back to back critical hits on, first an 82mm mortar in a foxhole, then a captured 60mm mortar with a squad. Several other KIA’s afflicted the NK, one of which involved a leader and two squads. On around turn four the NK launched a desperate attack against the objective complex. This involved moving many squads through the open under the guns of the Americans. Of the around 15 squads that made the assault, only one made it into CC, and it was CX. The US quickly eliminated that squad in CC and Al conceded. I think that the NK must be very aggressive, especially on turn one.

ASL 208, The Grist Mill, played 22 August 2018.
Al defended with the US forces and my NK guys attacked. I was able to approach the objective area from the right, behind the hill. Other units provided over watch fire from a hill to the US front. The .50cal was unable to maintain any rate of fire and the half squad manning the 60mm mortar was broken. The attack on the right cleared that hill and managed to get into assault position. However, a good fire phase from the US delayed the pending attack. Once my troops were in position on the right the ones in the center closed on the objective. The Americans fell back to the stone building to rally, but decided to return to their sangars. The NK fire then broke all but a US half squad and Al conceded. My attack went relatively well and I lost few troops. Al mis-read the victory conditions and thought that the hex containing the wreck was my objective.


ASL 209, A Line Too Thinly Held, played 5 September 2018.
I played the US and established a hedgehog on the far side of the hill, away from the off board observer. Early in the game an M16 halftrack obliterated a platoon of North Koreans after the enemy failed to damage the vehicle. The North Koreans made good progress on my right, forcing my troops into a tight perimeter on the first level of the hill. At one point all but two of my squads were broken and it looked like the end was near for the US. What followed was a string of good dice that turned the tables. A self rally, followed by a leader rally then another squad put the US forces into an improved position. Then, a phenomenal prep fire phase saw the majority of attacking North Koreans either break or outright die. This unusually good “dice tear” was too much for Al and he conceded. I didn’t play all that well and Al didn’t play poorly, I simply diced him when it counted.

ASL 210, This Is Where We Stand, played 11 September 2018.
I got to attack with the Chinese against Al’s dug in USMC at night. I established a support by fire position on my right with the majority of the grenadiers in the center. The mortars established themselves on the left with my best troops executing a flanking maneuver to the far left. The Marines held on desperately and I suffered extremely heavy casualties. On my last turn I finally managed to capture all the level three hexes, but the one on the far right was occupied by only a 2nd line half squad. The only living troops the US possessed was a half squad, but he was adjacent to my half squad occupying the hilltop. After ineffectual back and forth shooting the Marine half squad advanced onto my half squad on the hilltop. He had a 3-1 in CC and I had a 1-4. He easily killed off my guy but I rolled a three to casualty reduce the Marine. As the Marine was already a half squad it was eliminated and he failed to capture the hill. Wow, that was close. Dice trumped skill again. I lost 36 of 45 squads. The Marines were completely eliminated.
 
Last edited:

Jude

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2012
Messages
408
Reaction score
468
Location
Colorado Springs
Country
llUnited States
Ran into a buzzsaw as the Germans in HG-4 Mount Istibei. My original thinking was flawed as I thought I had the whole playing area to use. I realized the night before that wasn't the case. I already figured it would be a hard go of it anyway, and with a much smaller area, it just made the task harder still. The opening is kind of a guessing game as to where the Greek pillboxes would be. I guessed the top of the level four hill. Wrong. My friend set them up facing towards the middle and pretty much aimed the exact direction I was coming from, the west side. He lightly defended the east - at least with bunkers - leaving me to only guess what might had happened had I tried that side. Anyway, taking even one bunker proved difficult due to mines and tunnels. He rolled crazy hot today as at one point he rolled five threes out of seven rolls. My sniper only activated once in that span. I rolled very poorly as I failed MC after MC - and that's when my guys didn't just flat out die from the hot rolls. Having said that, the dice didn't do me in. He had a solid set up and I just couldn't make any headway. The Greek bunkers supported each other and left me little room to maneuver. I ended up taking two bunkers before I called it on turn 5 (of 8). I'm sure I would have taken one more pillbox but that would have been it. I heard this scenario has been modified from the original version by helping the Germans. They still need help. Some weapons that can fire smoke would be nice. They do have two INF Guns but they are pretty useless with no smoke capability and the targets being in +5 pillboxes. I don't play many scenarios going in thinking I don't have much of a chance, however, this was one of them. Unfortunately, I was proven right. Not recommended for the Germans but a definite recommend for the Greeks. They get to perform a good old fashioned turkey shoot.
 
Last edited:

lionelc62

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2007
Messages
410
Reaction score
452
Location
Northern France
First name
Lionel
Country
llFrance
This evening Randy and I got on VASL and Played FT 224 Guardians of Hells gate a scenario set in Feb 1944.

Another question we had was the SS get s a captured 85L ART piece, in the SSR there is no captured penalties but do the SS get the depletion number for 1944 Russians? And with the SS being Elite, can they further modify the depletion from 5 to 6?
Sorry, no special ammunitions for this gun. We will add an errrata on LFT site for this scenario.

Lionel
 

Okmed

ASL/SK Scout
Joined
May 8, 2015
Messages
75
Reaction score
19
Location
Atlanta, GA
Country
llUnited States
HF3 First Timers: I lost with the Germans due to poor (or mistaken) set-up decisions, but had fun. That +1 LV modifier does make a difference, for example making panzerfausts less dangerous and stone buildings even harder to hammer. Look out for those WP-capable 60mm mortars. Fun, easy to play. Didn't seem especially wintery because in this scenario all the vehicles are tracked.

Good point, Scott, about the "SK feel" of the map. It's the single-level buildings and lack of hills/streams/gullies that do it. Somebody with all the ASLSK stuff, including Elst (steeples), the Bonus Pack with board p (hedges) and S31 Going to New York! (EmRR) already has just about all the necessary terrain rules.

That map is a joy to use. I expect to play this module thoroughly, scenarios and CG.
 

Michael R

Minor Hero
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Feb 4, 2003
Messages
4,621
Reaction score
4,161
Location
La Belle Province
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
Erik Lindblad and I tried chess clock ASL today. We used a formula from an article in an early CH magazine. J.R. Tracy wrote the article. He calculated the time for two scenarios, one of which was Death At Carentan (a fine scenario in which both sides have the opportunity to attack). Both sides received 43 minutes for firing and moving their units (based on .5 minutes per unit per turn on the map). Clock stops during rally, rout and CC. If one player runs out of time, he loses. Erik, playing the Germans, ran out of time during American turn 4. I had five minutes left on my clock, so I won the time game. I did not note our start and end time, but I estimate that we played for an elapsed time of three hours. We decided to add twenty minutes to each clock and continue. Erik ran out of time again in German turn seven, but by then it was clear he could not win. We enjoyed the experience. When we try it again, however, we will add a little more time per unit. I did not take note of our start and end times, however, so I cannot give real elapsed time. It felt a bit faster to both of us.
 

Michael R

Minor Hero
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Feb 4, 2003
Messages
4,621
Reaction score
4,161
Location
La Belle Province
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
More importantly, did it diminish, add to or not change your enjoyment of the scenario?

JR
Erik liked the extra challenge of playing against the clock. He also enjoys online blitz chess, however. I always try to push myself to play faster; the clock helped me do that in a more tangible fashion. When we play again, we will do something for the time spent rolling MC and PTC; either pause the clock or change the clock to the owning player.
 

Robin Reeve

The Swiss Moron
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
19,593
Reaction score
5,556
Location
St-Légier
First name
Robin
Country
llSwitzerland
Without having tested such a thing, I could say for sure it would kill my enjoyment...

von Marwitz
I have thought of using a chess clock, when facing a very slow player.
When someone takes one hour and a half to play a turn when I take twenty minutes, my enjoyment level is next to brain death.
 

Eagle4ty

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
6,913
Reaction score
5,094
Location
Eau Claire, Wi
Country
llUnited States
I have thought of using a chess clock, when facing a very slow player.
When someone takes one hour and a half to play a turn when I take twenty minutes, my enjoyment level is next to brain death.
Wait and wait and wait and wait... until you play a guy that takes 90+ minutes to set up a 12 squad (per his side), infantry only scenario defense, only to end the game in about 20 minutes (well, I guess it averaged out) - and it was not an inexperienced player!
 

von Marwitz

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
14,355
Reaction score
10,204
Location
Kraut Corner
Country
llUkraine
I have thought of using a chess clock, when facing a very slow player.
When someone takes one hour and a half to play a turn when I take twenty minutes, my enjoyment level is next to brain death.
When playing a heretofore unkown player, it seems always a good idea to ask about some things before the first game:

  • Is he a quick or slow player (and what does he consider quick or slow...)?
  • Is he an IFT or IIFT fanatic that feels ABSOLUTELY INCAPABLE OF EVER EVER playing the other table BECAUSE?
  • Is he of the YOU MUST/MUST NOT-type, i.e. you MUST use precision dice, you MUST use a dice tower, you MUST share dice, you MUST NOT consider Perry Sez. etc.
  • Is he a competitive player or of the 'friendly' sort.
This takes less than 5 minutes and can be applied under any type of non-tournament circumstances. During tournaments you cannot influence with which player you might be paired for the next round (though knowledgable TDs usually have a rough idea of their players and can somtimes tweak the pairings according to their style of play as long as the general rules for the pairings are preserved).

If it becomes obvious after this quick check-up that the style of play of both players does not match, both are usually happy to pass on that game. In case both players are unsure if it works out, then playing one short scenario as a test seems the reasonable solution with afterwards openly talking about any issues about playing style that might arise.

At least this has always worked fine for me for VASL.


Cheers,
von Marwitz
 

Robin Reeve

The Swiss Moron
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
19,593
Reaction score
5,556
Location
St-Légier
First name
Robin
Country
llSwitzerland
I am not fully convinced by all those prerequisites.

If a player wants to use the IFT, his opponent must adapt.
It is the way the rule is written and should be applied.

As for the Perry Sez, I rather see some people who want to make believe that they have official authority at the same level as the officially published errata - which is wrong and insisting on that is simply a lie.
Most if not all players do take Perry Sez very seriously, though, so there isn't a real issue here.

Otherwise, imposing dice or the way they are rolled is not supported by the rules. I would decline playing someone who had that type of requirements, as they are mostly based on superstition.
Now, if a tournament has some requirements of that type, I would need to evaluate their reasons. If they are founded on the idea that players are cheaters unless the opposite is proven, it would reveal a paranoid atmosphere that I want nothing to do with.

Very slow playing can be disgraceful to one's opponent - especially in a tournament, when unfinished games require some referee to decide who has won the scenario : if it is due to one of the players being much more slower, it is a form of injustice (that outcome really should be avoided).

That said, I am usually easy going when it comes to personal preferences - and I can adapt.
 

von Marwitz

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
14,355
Reaction score
10,204
Location
Kraut Corner
Country
llUkraine
I am not fully convinced by all those prerequisites.
There is no need of being convinced of these prerequisites. But if you want to ensure that both players enjoy their game together, then one is well advised to consider them anyway.

If a player wants to use the IFT, his opponent must adapt.
If taking part in a tournament which requires this, yes. Otherwise no.
Why should on player sacrifice his preference of an official optional rule being used or not 100% to the other?
He could simply step back and play someone else, there are enough other players out there.

I usually ask whether people if people mind playing the IIFT with CTC. Many don't even if the usually play the IFT. Some say that the do indeed prefer the IFT. In that case I propose to alternate playing games with IFT and IIFT&CTC. If a player refuses that, I might consider not playing him regularly.

As for the Perry Sez, I rather see some people who want to make believe that they have official authority at the same level as the officially published errata - which is wrong and insisting on that is simply a lie.
Most if not all players do take Perry Sez very seriously, though, so there isn't a real issue here.
A while ago there was a poll here on that question, the outcome of which was that a significant majority treat a Perry Sez as having the same weight as the official body of the rules and the officially published errata. Regardless of what the 'truth' is, I am sure that it could be detrimental to the enjoyment of the game if you come to a point with one side insisting on not considering a 'Perry Sez' while the other does. Especially, if the outcome of the scenario might hinge on the issue. They then might fall back on having the issue decided on a DR, but who knows, maybe one of the sides might not be ready for that either. So better to agree on such things beforehand.

Very slow playing can be disgraceful to one's opponent - especially in a tournament, when unfinished games require some referee to decide who has won the scenario : if it is due to one of the players being much more slower, it is a form of injustice (that outcome really should be avoided).
Seeing one of the players being much slower than the other as a form of 'injustice' and a disgraceful act to the latter, I find somewhat daring. The player in question could counter it would be a form of 'injustice' that he is taken the better of by the faster player due to his speed, not giving him the time to evaluate his options. Or to impose a chess clock on him. Again much better to find out about each one's style/speed of play beforehand instead of one of the players feeling uncomfortable during the game. If no common ground can be found, why waste time playing each other while other opponents are available with whom no such issues arise?

That said, I am usually easy going when it comes to personal preferences - and I can adapt.
Indeed, this is what happens in the majority of cases. Both players adapting somewhat to find a common ground.
But it does not harm to check from the start if both players can agree on a common ground and rather pass instead of playing a game ill at ease, if they cannot.


von Marwitz
 

Robin Reeve

The Swiss Moron
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
19,593
Reaction score
5,556
Location
St-Légier
First name
Robin
Country
llSwitzerland
The IIFT is an optional rule (like alternate concealment placement or Gyro and Sz availability option) and must be treated as such.

Perry Sez are not official rulings at the same level than published errata and debriefing.
Polls don't establish truth : leave poll based "reality" to politicians.
If you can find an official statement from MMP (who are the only people who have the authority in that matter) that the Perry Sez have the same level of officiality as published errata, I will change my mind.
In particular, do you have the list of all answers given by MMP to players?
The Perry Sez recorded are mostly linked to GS, which is not the only place where ASL players interact nor where all of them come. Making Perry Sez fully official is terribly centered on GS.
And Klas' otherwise excellent initiative to regroup them is a fan's initiative : it is not endorsed nor referred to by MMP.
I know that you insist that the Perry Sez are fully official, but I am sorry to say that you are using logical fallacies and populist levers to push your opinion.
I appreciate most Perry Sez positively, but a handful are debatable and are acfually debated by top notch players.
Anyway, I stick to what MMP defines as official.

I don't speak of slow players, but of extremely slow ones (I previously evoked a proportion of one to 4-5 time between the faster and lower one - of course with comparabke OBs and situations to manage).
Read me better : the injustice is not slow play, but a tournament situation with the need of a referee to declare the result of an unfinished scenario, when the situation is clearly due to one of the opponents being excessively slow.
Yes, when time is limited, doing one's best to respect the schedule is good behaviour, while not caring isn't.

I will stop here, as we have derailed the thread enough.
 
Top